DOCSLIB.ORG

Inferences, Intent, and the Necessity to Redefine Genocide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Emory International Law Review Volume 31 Issue 2 2017 The Karadžić Genocide Conviction: Inferences, Intent, and the Necessity to Redefine Genocide Milena Sterio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Recommended Citation Milena Sterio, The Karadžić Genocide Conviction: Inferences, Intent, and the Necessity to Redefine Genocide, 31 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 271 (2017). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol31/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STERIO GALLEYSPROOFS2 2/20/2017 2:13 PM THE KARADŽIĆ GENOCIDE CONVICTION: INFERENCES, INTENT, AND THE NECESSITY TO REDEFINE GENOCIDE Milena Sterio* INTRODUCTION In March 2016, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadžić, of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to forty years imprisonment.1 In particular, Karadžić was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, the persecution of Bosnians and Croats throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, terrorizing the population of Sarajevo, and taking United Nations (U.N.) peacekeepers hostage.2 According to the ICTY Trial Chamber verdict, the crimes were committed as part of four joint criminal enterprises (JCE) in which Karadžić was a protagonist.3 In July 2016, Karadžić announced, through his defense counsel, that he would appeal the verdict on the ground that he did not get a fair trial—according to Karadžić’s attorney, Peter Robinson, “[t]he trial chamber considered him guilty in advance and then constructed the verdict to justify its presumption.”4 Robinson also stated that “[t]he chamber concluded [Karadžić] had an intention to kill the captives from Srebrenica on the basis of its interpretation of a coded telephone conversation. Such a way of drawing conclusions is unfounded and incorrect, so the verdict is unfair.”5 The ICTY prosecutors announced, on their end, that they also would appeal the verdict in order to ask “for Karadzic [sic] to be found guilty of the genocide in seven other Bosnian municipalities in 1992, and for his sentence to be raised to life imprisonment.”6 The appeals chamber of the Mechanism for International Tribunals, which is taking over the remaining work of the ICTY as it shuts down, * Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Enrichment, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. 1 Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Judgement, ¶ 6070–72 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Mar. 24, 2016), http://www.icty.org/x/cases/Karadžić/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf. 2 Id. ¶¶ 5824, 5849–50, 5950–51, 6002, 6047. 3 Id. ¶ 6046. 4 Radosa Milutinovic, Radovan Karadzic Appeals Against Genocide Conviction, BALKAN TRANSITIONAL JUST. (July 22, 2016), http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/Karadžić-files-appeal-notice-07-22-2016. 5 Id. 6 Id. STERIO GALLEYSPROOFS2 2/20/2017 2:13 PM 272 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31 will rule on the appeals, but as of now there is no clear deadline for delivering the ruling.7 In anticipation of the appeals chamber’s definitive ruling on the Karadžić verdict, this Article will address and analyze Karadžić’s genocide conviction. The Article will specifically focus on the interpretation of genocide espoused by the ICTY judges in this recent decision. As other commentators have already noted, the most striking finding of the ICTY Trial Chamber was that Karadžić had specific genocidal intent regarding the Srebrenica killings.8 During the Karadžić trial, the Prosecution had not been able to provide “smoking gun” evidence that Karadžić knew about the killings in Srebrenica as they were taking place; instead, the Prosecution’s case was essentially circumstantial.9 The Trial Chamber accepted the Prosecution’s reasoning and drew inferences from indirect evidence.10 It found that Karadžić was a participant in a JCE, sharing its common purpose: to eliminate Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica. This common purpose eventually evolved to encompass the agreement to kill all Bosnian adult males and to forcibly transfer women and children.11 The most important item of evidence that the Trial Chamber took into account was a conversation that Karadžić had with another official, Miroslav Deronjić.12 From this conversation, the Trial Chamber inferred first that Karadžić knew about the killings at Srebrenica as they were taking place and second that Karadžić, because he did not do anything after this conversation, must have shared Deronjić’s (and others’) intent to kill Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica.13 This interpretation of the intent requirement under the Genocide Convention and the customary law definition of genocide is novel and had not been espoused by other tribunals in the past. This Article will first discuss and analyze the Genocide Convention and its strict definition of genocide and the “intent” requirement. It will then focus on the evolution of this definition, in light of the recent Karadžić case. This Article will demonstrate that in modern-day conflicts, the finding of genocidal intent 7 Id. 8 See infra Part III. 9 See Marko Milanovic, ICTY Convicts Radovan Karadzic, EJIL: TALK! (Mar. 25, 2016), http://www. ejiltalk.org/icty-convicts-radovan-Karadzic/. 10 See id. 11 See Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Judgement, ¶¶ 5798, 5810–11, 5814 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Mar. 24, 2016), http://www.icty.org/x/cases/Karadžić/tjug/en/160324_ judgement.pdf., 12 Milanovic, supra note 9. 13 Id. STERIO GALLEYSPROOFS2 2/20/2017 2:13 PM 2017] THE KARADŽIĆ GENOCIDE CONVICTION 273 may be an impossible task for the prosecution and that the ICTY Trial Chamber’s method of inferring intent based on knowledge and other indirect factors may be the only way that prosecutors will be able to obtain future genocide convictions. This Article will then discuss a possible re-drafting and re-conceptualizing of the genocide definition, in light of modern-day conflicts and warfare. I. GENOCIDE CONVENTION: A STRICT DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE The term “genocide” was coined by Polish jurist, Raphaël Lemkin, to describe the Nazis’ actions during World War II against the Jews.14 According to Lemkin, “[g]enocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”15 Lemkin coined the term “genocide” by combining the Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin word caedere (to kill).16 According to Lemkin’s view of the crime of genocide, “the critical elements of genocide were not the individual acts, though they may be crimes in themselves, but the broader aim to destroy entire human collectivities.”17 The Holocaust, as well as the trial of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg, spurred states to negotiate a treaty on genocide to criminalize these atrocities.18 In December 1948, most U.N. member states agreed upon the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention).19 Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) 14 What is Genocide?, U.S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/ en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 (last updated July 2, 2016). 15 RAPHAËL LEMKIN, AXIS RULE IN OCCUPIED EUROPE 79 (1944). 16 Beth Van Schaack, Engendering Genocide: The Akayesu Case Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SANTA CLARA L. DIGITAL COMMONS, July 2008, at 1, 15. 17 Id. 18 See David L. Nersessian, The Contours of Genocidal Intent: Troubling Jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunals, 37 TEX. INT’L L.J. 231, 249 (2002). Although the crime of genocide was not included in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal established to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, the indictment at Nuremberg charged the defendants with “deliberate and systematic genocide” and allegations of genocide appeared in the prosecutors’ closing statements. Id. 19 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 [hereinafter Genocide Convention]. STERIO GALLEYSPROOFS2 2/20/2017 2:13 PM 274 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31 Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.20 The definition of genocide, as iterated in the Genocide Convention, has become customary international law as well as a jus cogens norm of international law.21 As such, this definition is binding on all states.22 The definition of genocide is narrow, as it requires proof that one of the enumerated groups (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) was targeted “as such.” Scholars have noted that the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention is historically attributable to the role of the Soviet Union in this treaty’s negotiation—in the late 1940s, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was committing massive purges of political
Recommended publications
  • The Bosnian Genocide Bosnia (Herzegovina) Is One of Several Small Countries That Emerged from the Break-Up of Yugoslavia. Yugosl

    The Bosnian Genocide Bosnia (Herzegovina) Is One of Several Small Countries That Emerged from the Break-Up of Yugoslavia. Yugosl

    The Bosnian Genocide Map of Bosnia Herzegovina Bosnia (Herzegovina) is one of several small countries that emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a country composed of ethnic and religious groups that had been rivals, and included the Serbs (Christians), Croats (Catholics) and ethnic Bosniaks and Albanians (Muslims). Nazi Germany invaded and divided Yugoslavia during World War II. After Germany’s defeat, Josef Broz Tito, reunified Yugoslavia under the slogan "Brotherhood and Unity," combining different nations (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo and Vojvodina) into one, Yugoslavia. After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia quickly was in political and economic chaos. In the 1980’s Slobodan Milosevic, a Serbian, gained power through religious hate and nationalism and provoked tensions between Serbs and Muslims by Josef Broz Tito, strong leader encouraging Serb nationalism in the republics where there of Yugoslavia. were large Serb communities. Over the years, the hostility of the rival ethnic and religious groups sharing the same Slobodan Milosevic, President of country grew, until a civil war finally began in the early 1990s. In 1991 Croatia, Slovenia Serbia and promoter of the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia declared independence. Bosnia became an independent nation in 1992. The largest population of Bosnia was made up of Muslims, while Serbs became the minority, accounting for about 32% of the Bosnian population. Once Bosnia was declared an independent nation, many of the Serbs residing in Bosnia were angry and decided to take action. Between April 1992 and November 1995, Serbia set out to remove all Bosnian Muslims. About 200,000 lives were lost during the Bosnian genocide.
  • United Nations

    United Nations

    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-03-68-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 30 June 2006 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Original: English Former Yugoslavia since 1991 IN TRIAL CHAMBER II Before: Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding Judge Hans Henrik Brydensholt Judge Albin Eser Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 30 June 2006 PROSECUTOR v. NASER ORIĆ JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Jan Wubben Ms. Patricia Viseur Sellers Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio Ms. JoAnne Richardson Mr. José Doria Counsel for the Accused: Ms. Vasvija Vidović Mr. John Jones Case No.: IT-03-68-T 30 June 2006 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. THE ACCUSED 1 B. SUMMARY OF THE CHARGES 2 1. Charges of Murder and Cruel Treatment 2 2. Charges of Wanton Destruction 3 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 5 A. GENERAL MATTERS REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE 5 B. AUTHENTICITY OF EXHIBITS 8 1. Prosecution Objections to the Admission of Documents Tendered by the Defence 9 2. Defence Objections to the Admission of Documents Tendered by the Prosecution 9 (a) Objections Based on Lack or Insufficient Chain of Custody 9 (b) Objections to Exhibits Which Have not Been Presented to any Witness 11 (c) Objections Based on the Nature of the Document 11 i. Computer Files 11 ii. ‘Combat Action Information Sheets’ from the ABiH 2nd Corps 12 (d) Objections Based on the Source of the Document 12 i. Documents Provided by the Republika Srpska Liaison Office 12 ii. Documents Provided by Republika Srpska Bureau for Co-operation With the Tribunal 13 iii.
  • Legal Response to Propaganda Broadcasts Related to Crisis in and Around Ukraine, 2014–2015

    Legal Response to Propaganda Broadcasts Related to Crisis in and Around Ukraine, 2014–2015

    International Journal of Communication 9(2015), Feature 3125–3145 1932–8036/2015FEA0002 Legal Response to Propaganda Broadcasts Related to Crisis in and Around Ukraine, 2014–2015 ANDREI G. RICHTER1 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Keywords: freedom of expression, freedom of the media, propaganda for war, incitement to hatred, international standards, rule of law, national regulators, Russia, Ukraine, UK, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova The conflict in and around Ukraine in 2014–2015 has brought about the spread of propaganda for war and hatred, especially on television and on the Internet. Research on the national laws and resolutions made by courts and independent media regulators that adjudicated complaints on Russian TV propaganda in Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, the UK, and Ukraine shows that the national courts and regulators made few references to international norms, resting, rather, on domestically developed standards. As a result, there was a lack of solid grounds for stopping, blocking, and banning programs emanating from Russian media. In particular, there was no clear line between propaganda for war and hatred, proscribed under international norms, and legally protected Kremlin interpretation of the events in Ukraine. The comparative analysis of case law attempts to provide a modern rationale for regulation of propaganda for war and hatred and through it to offer relevant recommendations. Introduction The year 2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. It is worthwhile to recall that the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which precipitated the start of the hostilities, included a major demand to stop nationalistic propaganda, as it flared the existing controversies.
  • Conceptualising Historical Crimes

    Conceptualising Historical Crimes

    Should crimes committed in the course of Conceptualising history that are comparable to genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes be Historical Crimes referred to as such, whatever the label used at the time?180 This is the question I want to examine below. Let us compare the prob- lems of labelling historical crimes with his- torical and recent concepts, respectively.181 Historical concepts for historical crimes “Historical concepts” are terms used to de- scribe practices by the contemporaries of these practices. Scholars can defend the use of historical concepts with the argu- ment that many practices deemed inadmis- sible today (such as slavery, human sacri- fice, heritage destruction, racism, censor- ship, etc.) were accepted as rather normal and sometimes even as morally and legally right in some periods of the past. Arguably, then, it would be unfaithful to the sources, misleading and even anachronistic to use Antoon De Baets the present, accusatory labels to describe University of Groningen them. This would mean, for example, that one should not call the crimes committed during the Crusades crimes against hu- manity (even if a present observer would have good reason to qualify some of these crimes as such), for such a concept was nonexistent at the time. A radical variant of the latter is the view that not only recent la- bels should be avoided but even any moral judgments of past crimes. This argument, however, can be coun- tered with several objections. First, diverg- ing judgments. It is well known that parties V HISTOREIN OLU M E 11 (2011) involved in violent conflicts label these conflicts differently.
  • Worlds Apart: Bosnian Lessons for Global Security

    Worlds Apart: Bosnian Lessons for Global Security

    Worlds Apart Swanee Hunt Worlds Apart Bosnian Lessons for GLoBaL security Duke university Press Durham anD LonDon 2011 © 2011 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ♾ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland Typeset in Charis by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. To my partners c harLes ansBacher: “Of course you can.” and VaLerie GiLLen: “Of course we can.” and Mirsad JaceVic: “Of course you must.” Contents Author’s Note xi Map of Yugoslavia xii Prologue xiii Acknowledgments xix Context xxi Part i: War Section 1: Officialdom 3 1. insiDe: “Esteemed Mr. Carrington” 3 2. outsiDe: A Convenient Euphemism 4 3. insiDe: Angels and Animals 8 4. outsiDe: Carter and Conscience 10 5. insiDe: “If I Left, Everyone Would Flee” 12 6. outsiDe: None of Our Business 15 7. insiDe: Silajdžić 17 8. outsiDe: Unintended Consequences 18 9. insiDe: The Bread Factory 19 10. outsiDe: Elegant Tables 21 Section 2: Victims or Agents? 24 11. insiDe: The Unspeakable 24 12. outsiDe: The Politics of Rape 26 13. insiDe: An Unlikely Soldier 28 14. outsiDe: Happy Fourth of July 30 15. insiDe: Women on the Side 33 16. outsiDe: Contact Sport 35 Section 3: Deadly Stereotypes 37 17. insiDe: An Artificial War 37 18. outsiDe: Clashes 38 19. insiDe: Crossing the Fault Line 39 20. outsiDe: “The Truth about Goražde” 41 21. insiDe: Loyal 43 22. outsiDe: Pentagon Sympathies 46 23. insiDe: Family Friends 48 24. outsiDe: Extremists 50 Section 4: Fissures and Connections 55 25.
  • Miroslav Deronjic, “Bearing in Mind His Genuine Remorse Expressed on Numerous Occasions During His Contacts with OTP Investigators”.521

    Miroslav Deronjic, “Bearing in Mind His Genuine Remorse Expressed on Numerous Occasions During His Contacts with OTP Investigators”.521

    Case No.: IT-02-61-S 30 March 2004 UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-02-61-S Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 30 March 2004 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN TRIAL CHAMBER II Before: Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Presiding Judge Carmel A. Agius Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 30 March 2004 PROSECUTOR v. MIROSLAV DERONJI] SENTENCING JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Mark B. Harmon Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Slobodan Cvijeti} Mr. Slobodan Ze~evi} Case No.: IT-02-61-S 30 March 2004 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. THE ACCUSED.................................................................................................................................. 2 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 4 A. OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS ....................................................................................................... 4 B. PLEA AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 6 C. TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED............................................................................................................. 7 D. SENTENCING HEARING
  • JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER (Exclusively for the Use of the Media

    JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER (Exclusively for the Use of the Media

    JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER (Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document) United Nations The Hague, 30 June 2006 Nations Unies PROSECUTOR V. NASER ORIĆ SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT International Please find below the summary of the judgement today read out by Judge Agius: Criminal Tribunal for the former Introduction Yugoslavia Tribunal Pénal Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is sitting today to International pour deliver its Judgement in the trial of Naser Orić. l’ex-Yougoslavie This case deals with crimes of murder and cruel treatment of prisoners and of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages alleged to have happened in Srebrenica in 1992 and 1993 for which the Accused was indicted on 13 March 2003. The Accused stood trial for the following charges: first, under COUNT 1, he is charged with individual criminal responsibility under Article 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal (“Statute”) for murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute. Under COUNT 2, the Accused is charged with individual criminal responsibility under Article 7(3) of the Statute for cruel treatment as a violation of the laws or customs of war pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute. The Prosecution never alleged that these crimes of murder and cruel treatment were committed by the Accused, but only accused him pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute as being responsible for these crimes committed by his subordinates whilst he was holding a position of superior authority.
  • The Public Eye, Summer 2010

    The Public Eye, Summer 2010

    Right-Wing Co-Opts Civil Rights Movement History, p. 3 TheA PUBLICATION OF POLITICAL R PublicEyeESEARCH ASSOCIATES Summer 2010 • Volume XXV, No.2 Basta Dobbs! Last year, a coalition of Latino/a groups suc - cessfully fought to remove anti-immigrant pundit Lou Dobbs from CNN. Political Research Associates Executive DirectorTarso Luís Ramos spoke to Presente.org co-founder Roberto Lovato to find out how they did it. Tarso Luís Ramos: Tell me about your organization, Presente.org. Roberto Lovato: Presente.org, founded in MaY 2009, is the preeminent online Latino adVocacY organiZation. It’s kind of like a MoVeOn.org for Latinos: its goal is to build Latino poWer through online and offline organiZing. Presente started With a campaign to persuade GoVernor EdWard Rendell of PennsYlVania to take a stand against the Verdict in the case of Luis RamíreZ, an undocumented immigrant t t e Who Was killed in Shenandoah, PennsYl - k n u l Vania, and Whose assailants Were acquitted P k c a J bY an all-White jurY. We also ran a campaign / o t o to support the nomination of Sonia h P P SotomaYor to the Supreme Court—We A Students rally at a State Board of Education meeting, Austin, Texas, March 10, 2010 produced an “I Stand With SotomaYor” logo and poster that people could displaY at Work or in their neighborhoods and post on their Facebook pages—and a feW addi - From Schoolhouse to Statehouse tional, smaller campaigns, but reallY the Curriculum from a Christian Nationalist Worldview Basta Dobbs! continues on page 12 By Rachel Tabachnick TheTexas Curriculum IN THIS ISSUE Controversy objectiVe is present—a Christian land goV - 1 Editorial .
  • Genocide and Belonging: Processes of Imagining Communities

    Genocide and Belonging: Processes of Imagining Communities

    GENOCIDE AND BELONGING: PROCESSES OF IMAGINING COMMUNITIES ADENO ADDIS* ABSTRACT Genocide is often referred to as “the crime of crimes.” It is a crime that is very high on the nastiness scale. The purpose of the genocidaire is of course to destroy a community—a community that he regards as a threat to his own community, whether the threat is perceived as physical, economic or cultural. The way this takes place and the complicity of law in this process has been extensively explored by scholars. But the process of destroying a community is perversely often simultaneously an “exercise in community build- ing,” a process through which intra-communal bonds and belong- ing are sought to be strengthened. This aspect of genocide has been entirely neglected by scholars, especially the role of law in that pro- cess. This article makes and defends two claims about communities and belonging in relation to genocide. First, it argues that as per- verse as it sounds, genocide is in fact an exercise in community building and law is highly implicated in that process. It defends the thesis with arguments that are conceptual as well as empirical. The second, and more hopeful, claim is that the international response * W. R. Irby Chair and W. Ray Forrester Professor of Public and Constitutional Law, Tulane University School of Law. Previous drafts of the paper were presented at an international conference at the Guanghua Law School of Zhejiang University (China) and at Tulane Law School faculty symposium. I thank participants at those meetings for the many helpful questions and comments.
  • Bill Clinton, the Bosnian War, and American Foreign Relations in the Post-Cold War Era, 1992-1995

    Bill Clinton, the Bosnian War, and American Foreign Relations in the Post-Cold War Era, 1992-1995

    VISIONARY POLICY: BILL CLINTON, THE BOSNIAN WAR, AND AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA, 1992-1995 James E. CovinGton III A thesis submitted to the faculty at the UniveRsity of NoRth CaRolina at Chapel Hill in paRtial fulfillment of the RequiRements foR the deGRee of MasteR of Arts in the Military History program in the DepaRtment of HistoRy. Chapel Hill 2015 AppRoved by: Michael C. MoRgan Wayne E. Lee Joseph W. Caddell © 2015 James E. CovinGton III ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT James E. CovinGton III: VisionaRy Policy: Bill Clinton, the Bosnian WaR, and AmeRican Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era, 1992-1995 (Under the direction of Michael C. MoRGan) Bill Clinton assumed office duRinG a particularly challenging peRiod of AmeRican histoRy. AfteR the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States enjoyed a period of unprecedented power and authority. Clinton was elected to office laRGely for his domestic policies, howeveR, his vision foR AmeRica’s position in the post-Cold War woRld steeRed his foReign policy, particularly with respect to Europe. Clinton’s vision was moRe inclusive and encompassinG than that of his predecessor, George H. W. Bush. During the post-Cold WaR yeaRs, Bush was moRe inclined to let EuRope soRt out theiR own pRoblems, particularly in the case of Bosnia. Clinton, however, was moRe willing to see post-Cold WaR EuRopean pRoblems as AmeRican issues. The Bosnian WaR RepResents a point wheRe these two ideals collided. Guided by this vision, Clinton oveRcame challenGes fRom the EuRopean Community, political adveRsaRies, and even his own public en Route to inteRveninG in Bosnia.
  • Critical Genocide Studies

    Critical Genocide Studies

    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 1 April 2012 Full Issue 7.1 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation (2012) "Full Issue 7.1," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 7: Iss. 1: Article 1. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss1/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Editors’ Introduction Volume 7, issue 1 of Genocide Studies and Prevention continues the discussion of the state of the field of genocide studies that was initiated in volume 6, issue 3. Due to our (the editors’) keen desire to include as many different voices and perspectives as possi- ble, we reached out to old hands in the field, younger but well established scholars, and several scholars who recently completed their graduate studies but have already made an impact on the field. The sequence of the articles over the two issues began with comprehensive treat- ments and then moved into articles with more specific focuses, grouped thematically where applicable. Through the entire sequence across these two issues of GSP, we hope that readers will gain a solid sense of the history of the field and insight into some of the perdurable issues that have been at the heart of the field since its inception and that they have opportunities to reflect on the host of issues and concerns raised by authors coming from different disciplines (e.g., history, political science, sociology, psychology, philosophy) with vastly different perspectives.
  • The London School of Economics and Political Science German Print Media Coverage in the Bosnia and Kosovo Wars of the 1990S Marg

    The London School of Economics and Political Science German Print Media Coverage in the Bosnia and Kosovo Wars of the 1990S Marg

    1 The London School of Economics and Political Science German Print Media Coverage in the Bosnia and Kosovo Wars of the 1990s Margit Viola Wunsch A thesis submitted to the Department of International History of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, November 2012 2 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. Abstract This is a novel study of the German press’ visual and textual coverage of the wars in Bosnia (1992-95) and Kosovo (1998-99). Key moments have been selected and analysed from both wars using a broad range of publications ranging from extreme-right to extreme-left and including broadsheets, a tabloid and a news-magazine, key moments have been selected from both wars. Two sections with parallel chapters form the core of the thesis. The first deals with the war in Bosnia and the second the conflict in Kosovo. Each section contains one chapter on the initial phase of the conflict, one chapter on an important atrocity – namely the Srebrenica Massacre in Bosnia and the Račak incident in Kosovo – and lastly a chapter each on the international involvement which ended the immediate violence.